Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Administración de suplementos con vitamina D para la fibrosis quística

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007298.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 14 mayo 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Fibrosis quística y enfermedades genéticas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Janet H Ferguson

    Correspondencia a: Christchurch Hospital, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Anne B Chang

    Child Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia

Contributions of authors

Both JF and AC extracted the data and wrote the protocol and review.

JF acts as guarantor of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

    AC is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship

Declarations of interest

JF has attended paediatric diabetes and endocrinology conferences and workshops sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Medica Pacifica, for continuing medical education purposes. Neither herself nor Canterbury District Health Board have received payment for her attendance of these conferences.

AC declares receipt of a grant provided by GSK is unrelated to this topic.

Acknowledgements

We thank Natalie Yates for performing the literature searches and obtaining the articles and Nikki Jahnke for review of the manuscript and advice on analysis. We also thank Kerry Dwan for help with the statistics and the Cochrane CFGD Group for their support during the development of the protocol and review. We also thank Professor Howarth for responding to our correspondence.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 May 14

Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis

Review

Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007298.pub4

2012 Apr 18

Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis

Review

Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007298.pub3

2009 Oct 07

Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis

Review

Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007298.pub2

2009 Jul 08

Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis

Protocol

Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007298

Differences between protocol and review

We include a post‐hoc analysis of BMD outcomes (z scores: deviation from population mean matched for age and gender) which is different from the planned primary BMD outcome measures of the protocol. Values for BMD can be expressed as T‐scores or z scores, with different advantages and disadvantages, but equal validity in studies. As we could not use both as the primary outcome in the protocol, we elected to choose T‐score in the protocol. However the studies included provided only z scores and hence this was included as a post‐hoc analysis; we did request additional data but none were available. This is also now consistent with the primary outcomes in the Cochrane review on 'Bisphosphonates for adults and children with cystic fibrosis' (Brenckmann 2001).

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Child; Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, outcome: 1.2 Serum calcium (absolute final) [mmol/L].
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, outcome: 1.2 Serum calcium (absolute final) [mmol/L].

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, outcome: 1.3 25(OH)D [ng/ml].
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, outcome: 1.3 25(OH)D [ng/ml].

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, outcome: 1.5 PTH levels (absolute final) [pmol/L].
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, outcome: 1.5 PTH levels (absolute final) [pmol/L].

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 1 Serum calcium change (mmol/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 1 Serum calcium change (mmol/L).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 2 Serum calcium (absolute final).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 2 Serum calcium (absolute final).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 3 25(OH)D.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 3 25(OH)D.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 4 1,25(OH)2D (absolute final).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 4 1,25(OH)2D (absolute final).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 5 PTH levels (absolute final).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 5 PTH levels (absolute final).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 6 PTH levels (change from baseline).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 6 PTH levels (change from baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 1 Whole body bone mineral content change (g).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 1 Whole body bone mineral content change (g).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 2 Lumbar spine z score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 2 Lumbar spine z score.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 3 Lumbar spine bone mineral density (% change).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 3 Lumbar spine bone mineral density (% change).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 4 Hip bone mineral density (% change).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 4 Hip bone mineral density (% change).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 5 Distal forearm bone mineral density (% change).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 5 Distal forearm bone mineral density (% change).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 6 Hip bone mineral density (change).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo, Outcome 6 Hip bone mineral density (change).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Comparison 1. Vitamin D versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Serum calcium change (mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Serum calcium (absolute final) Show forest plot

2

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.02, 0.06]

2.1 Up to 3 months

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08]

2.2 Up to 6 months

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.03, 0.07]

3 25(OH)D Show forest plot

3

81

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.24 [5.01, 9.46]

3.1 Up to 3 months (final values)

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.70 [6.24, 11.16]

3.2 Up to 6 months (final values)

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [‐4.56, 6.96]

3.3 Up to 12 months (change from baseline)

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.60 [‐15.41, 10.21]

4 1,25(OH)2D (absolute final) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Up to 6 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 PTH levels (absolute final) Show forest plot

2

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.93 [‐5.22, 3.36]

5.1 Up to 3 months

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐7.60 [‐20.51, 5.31]

5.2 Up to 6 months

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐4.65, 4.45]

6 PTH levels (change from baseline) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Vitamin D versus placebo
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Whole body bone mineral content change (g) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Lumbar spine z score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Lumbar spine bone mineral density (% change) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Hip bone mineral density (% change) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Distal forearm bone mineral density (% change) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Hip bone mineral density (change) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Up to 12 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Post‐hoc analysis: Vitamin D versus placebo
Ir a la tabla de la revisión